Teams

PRC - Honeycutt

2026 B'ham Tri-Level Weekday - 18 & Over Women · 4.5,4.0,3.5 Women Wednesday

11 players · average NTRP 4.00 / ALABAMA

View scouting list →
Schedule3 played
2026-06-03vs YMCA Mt. Brook - PatelWon 21
W#1 DoublesKim Nolen / Tami Hansen vs Jamye Litty / Marie Bateh6-3, 6-3
W#2 DoublesSharon Travis / Angie Blaising vs Nital Patel / Annie Crump6-3, 6-2
L#3 DoublesKelley Jones / Tammy Woodham vs Kathy Jones / Mary Bell1-6, 6-2, 1-0
2026-05-20vs VCC - CaudellWon 21
W#1 DoublesKathy Honeycutt / Tami Hansen vs Stephanie Sealock / Laura Mikos6-4, 1-6, 1-0
W#2 DoublesTracey Dalzell Walsh / Kirstie Ivey vs Jordan Caudell / Brandi Israel6-2, 6-3
L#3 DoublesKelley Jones / Selina Maddox vs Sarah Pipkin / Ashley Hood5-7, 0-6
2026-05-13Won 10
W#2 DoublesAngie Blaising / Kirstie Ivey vs N/A6-0, 6-0
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.

Flight standings for 4.5,4.0,3.5 Women Wednesday have not been collected yet. Where we have them we show every team in the flight ranked, with this team highlighted. The crawler is still filling in older seasons and flights.

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.70 estimated across 11 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

4.25
Tami Hansen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.93
Kirstie Ivey
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.92
Angie Blaising
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published 4
3.90
Sharon Travis
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.87
Tracey Dalzell Walsh
usually #2 Doubles 100% · published
3.85
Kim Nolen
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.75
Kathy Honeycutt
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.43
Marcy Jolly
published
3.39
Selina Maddox
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.28
Tammy Woodham
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
3.17
Kelley Jones
usually #3 Doubles 100% · published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Marcy Jolly + Selina Maddox321956% games+2.0% vs expected
Kathy Honeycutt + Angie Blaising5350% games+1.0% vs expected
Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Angie Blaising4259% games−0.1% vs expected
Sharon Travis + Angie Blaising4254% gamesnot enough data
Sharon Travis + Kathy Honeycutt3247% gamesnot enough data
Tami Hansen + Kathy Honeycutt314 matchesnot enough data
Tracey Dalzell Walsh + Kirstie Ivey224 matchesnot enough data
Kirstie Ivey + Angie Blaising044 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

Tami Hansen
34W–13L career · 2 lines in 2026
3%95%3%
4.25
Kirstie Ivey
89W–54L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%69%31%
3.93
4
Angie Blaising
83W–56L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%73%27%
3.92
Sharon Travis
43W–17L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%79%21%
3.90
Tracey Dalzell Walsh
36W–26L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%83%17%
3.87
Kim Nolen
14W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
87%13%<1%
3.85
Kathy Honeycutt
26W–47L career · 1 line in 2026
97%3%<1%
3.75
Marcy Jolly
70W–36L career · no lines in 2026
<1%71%29%
3.43
Selina Maddox
51W–38L career · 1 line in 2026
<1%80%19%
3.39
Tammy Woodham
19W–20L career · 1 line in 2026
2%94%5%
3.28
Kelley Jones
17W–41L career · 2 lines in 2026
10%90%1%
3.17

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.